Jörg Jaksche: Doping, hypocrisy and a dog called Bella

[roundabout]

Of course it's not easy and things aren't always what they appear.

But here we have Vaughters taking his steamroller out for a spin and flattening Jaksche. Maybe he deserves it, I dunno, I haven't met him 3-4 times.

Still, I am confused. I am angry. I am conflicted. I initially thought that Vaughters publicly naming 1 rider of his as a former doping user would make me feel easier, but it doesn't. And it's simply because I have never seen 1 person's integrity and cycling ability be attacked in that way in a public cycling forum by a person within cycling who we can put a name to.

And this person has the nerve to talk about changing cycling from within. He can't bring himself to say anything bad about the people who played a role in creating and maintaining the playing field where the cheats can prosper. For you see, they are pragmatic rationalists who act within the constraints of the anti-doping rule enforcement.

Anger. Yeah. They get a chance for redemption, the chance to continue being in cycling. Their character flaws are likely not to be aired in public. For them the past will be the past and it would be more important to judge them on current actions.

It's been 5 years, but the **** is still the same. And it still stinks just as badly.

 

[Markyboyzx6r]

JV. Thanks for your contribution to the thread. I myself certainly appreciate it.

I have no issue with you not hiring JJ, it’s your team, your call. However, it’s pretty obvious even from what you’re saying that there is no concerted effort to eradicate doping from within the sport. None. Doping is a problem which is being managed down, i.e. it still happens but at a low level so red flags aren’t being set off and everyone can look at the performances as being within the limits of what’s ‘normal’ physiology.

I’ve got a problem with this, though. It’s just not good enough. I know that people saying ‘JV is spinning things and giving it PR’ is a bit of an insult but there’s a fair amount of truth in it too. The question for non-doping teams (like yours) is, do they work within a system in which doping is still happening and just make all the right noises about the sport being cleaner than before or do those same teams go the truth and reconciliation route, create a new structure to the sport and completely change the UCI?

Because on the one hand we have JV going “cleaner than ever” and on the other we have JJ and the LA case giving us evidence that cycling is totally corrupt. I know which side of the fence I’m on. “Low Level Doping” is the accepted level in the peleton these days, it seems. And whistleblowers have no way back into the sport. No – I’m sorry, after what us cycling fans have been though these last 20 year that ain’t good enough.

The Vuelta is a joke. If JV thinks that’s indicative of clean cycling then I’m a monkey’s uncle (to carry on the simian theme!).

 

[ToreBear]

why would you discuss things like that about a rider of yours in a forum?

I think someone brought it up, and JV responded, and explained some of the problems. Insecurity etc.

It's good for the rider that the perception of him be adressed. If he is viewed as arrogant, years of 10 second interviews showing the contrary might change perceptions of him in 5 years time. JV now putting that arrogance in context, makes it easier for the rider to show he is not what perceptions of him previosly were more easily. His load becomes a little lighter.

Thats a win for the rider and a win for the team.

One might from that and other information in this thread assume that JV views Dekker as a rider with good physiological potential/capacity that has been stymied by psychological issues that JV think are correctable.


This is also interesting in relation to doping in cycling. For many years, doping has been viewed as a quick and easy fix for unexplained difficulties. Searching for and alleviating these difficulties has not been seen as cost effective. Both in the minds of the riders and in the minds of the teams.

 

[ToreBear]

According to local riders, Jaksche is not just smart but a smartass and wasn't easy to deal with. The same riders interestingly claimed that JJ (and also Sinkewitz, there are horror stories about him that sound credible) started abusing as early as Junior level.

According to JJ himself, he would have always been tempted to cheat - just because he's able to.

The German scene is as small as the US American scene and it has been proven true, if there is smoke, there is fire. There is no doubt that both, JJ and Sinke have been bullyed impetuously, though.

It's not that easy, blaming it on omertà and all.

Thanks! This puts things even more into context.

Of course JJ might still have been blacklisted, its just that JV never came that far in his assesment process like he did(supposedly?) with Landis by sending an email to ASO.

Had JV wanted JJ perhaps he might have met the same problem, but JV did'nt so it never came up.

 

[ToreBear]

Cycling is cleaner now. just look at the numbers. I'm not being idealistic. I'm just looking at VAM, av hb, power outputs, etc.

Sky, in the same form they had in 2012 TdF would have gotten slaughtered in the 1996 Tour de France. Not one guy in the top 30 on GC.

That's my only point. And the numbers support that.

This is my impression from what i'we read.(I'm a novice in understanding this though).

The blood passport reduces the possibility of enhancing the performance to such an extent as has been seen previosly.

The next areas were doping would have an effect, though perhaps not as large, would be in allowing more training outside of competition before the races, and in recovery between stages and races.

Out of competition testing should make it possible to uncover manipulation during training, if it is followed through by those responsible for the testing.

On recovery I have no idea. But when I read Tylers book, it should give me a better understanding of how people cheated, and how to stop them in the future.

 

[sniper]

...
The blood passport reduces the possibility of enhancing the performance to such an extent as has been seen previosly.
...

the bloodpassport doesn't change the fact that the teams with the best medical department will win most races. in fact, you could, with a bit of cynicism, easily see the passport as an extra step towards consolidating the influence of doctors.

 

[zigmeister]

I think someone brought it up, and JV responded, and explained some of the problems. Insecurity etc.

It's good for the rider that the perception of him be adressed. If he is viewed as arrogant, years of 10 second interviews showing the contrary might change perceptions of him in 5 years time. JV now putting that arrogance in context, makes it easier for the rider to show he is not what perceptions of him previosly were more easily. His load becomes a little lighter.

Thats a win for the rider and a win for the team.

One might from that and other information in this thread assume that JV views Dekker as a rider with good physiological potential/capacity that has been stymied by psychological issues that JV think are correctable.


This is also interesting in relation to doping in cycling. For many years, doping has been viewed as a quick and easy fix for unexplained difficulties. Searching for and alleviating these difficulties has not been seen as cost effective. Both in the minds of the riders and in the minds of the teams.

Or, maybe as the team owner/manager, you say WTF you want and the kid can deal with it. If he responds well, terrific. If not, well, maybe some other teams will want you.

I've said this to many people over the years, this applies to cycling/business etc..

You can be the best employee, great worker and performer, but if you are a PITA to deal with, have a bad attitude and in general don't get along with people, a company will find a way to get rid of you.

As a manager for well over 10yrs, I don't need PITAsses. I just need people to show up, do their job, do it well, and curb any egos and issues they might have. I'm not a jerk to work for, actually the opposite. It all depends on the employee and how they go about dealing with others on a daily basis.

Jorg, or whomever, same applies for them. If you are a PITA, or give off a bad vibe, people don't want to touch and deal with you. There are too many other things to worry about when running a business, cycling team etc..than some jackass and his bad attitude.

We don't need to read anymore into things and generate more conspiracy, it really is that simple.

 

[ToreBear]

the bloodpassport doesn't change the fact that the teams with the best medical department will win most races. in fact, you could, with a bit of cynicism, easily see the passport as an extra step towards consolidating the influence of doctors.

This is not my impression. Though you could be right. I don't know enough about the passport system and how it's implemented in cycling to counter your view. From what I have learned about cycling in recent months it would'nt surprise me that much if it's implementation is full of holes ready to be exploited.

Or, maybe as the team owner/manager, you say WTF you want and the kid can deal with it. If he responds well, terrific. If not, well, maybe some other teams will want you.

I've said this to many people over the years, this applies to cycling/business etc..

You can be the best employee, great worker and performer, but if you are a PITA to deal with, have a bad attitude and in general don't get along with people, a company will find a way to get rid of you.

As a manager for well over 10yrs, I don't need PITAsses. I just need people to show up, do their job, do it well, and curb any egos and issues they might have. I'm not a jerk to work for, actually the opposite. It all depends on the employee and how they go about dealing with others on a daily basis.

Jorg, or whomever, same applies for them. If you are a PITA, or give off a bad vibe, people don't want to touch and deal with you. There are too many other things to worry about when running a business, cycling team etc..than some jackass and his bad attitude.

We don't need to read anymore into things and generate more conspiracy, it really is that simple.

Yep, I can't seem to find anything you have said that I disagree with. If the benifit of bringing in someone is lower than the cost of adapting them to the task the company requires, the choice is easy.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

According to local riders, Jaksche is not just smart but a smartass and wasn't easy to deal with. The same riders interestingly claimed that JJ (and also Sinkewitz, there are horror stories about him that sound credible) started abusing as early as Junior level.

Nice, the 'discredit the withness game'.

Got news for you: they also dope at junior levels. In Germany, Belgium, France, England, USA, just not in Spain

JJ is a blabbermouth with an attitude, has stated he doesn't have to excuse himself to the cycling fans [ergo, he is a narcistic man] that is why he wasn't hired at Garmin. Dekker has an attitude but is hired. That must be the difference.

I must say that would be a plausible explaination for Vaughters not to hire.

That doesn't explain why he couldn't get a ride in Spain/Italy/France/Holland/Belgium but got one in San Marino untill the UCI stepped in and didn't give the Cinelli team a licence.

Blacklisted.

 

[hrotha]

For what it's worth, Jaksche said he went through the amateur ranks without knowing anything about doping. When Stanga saw him performing at the 1997 Paris-Nice, he asked him about his program. He didn't know what he meant. Stanga measured his hematocrit and found it to be quite low, and that's when he knew he had a winner.

That's Jaksche's version anyway.

 

[roundabout]

Thing is I know at least two "loose cannons" who were likely to be on the drugs since junior days.

Both ended up with their second doping offense on WT teams. Admittedly not the most image-conscious WT teams out there, but WT teams nevertheless.

That Jaksche was blacklisted is absolutely obvious. He also didn't have the glowing references like "the most talented U23 rider" or "the most talented rider ever tested".

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

You have to remember, you are a rare fan. You are very knowledgable. When I speak in large publications, I'm not speaking to the hard core fan, I'm speaking to the large audience of enthusiastic, but not overly knowledgable fans.

I love watching the Broncos play. I don't know **** about football. I'm the equivalent of 90% of fans out there, for most sports, cycling included.

The details are best left to those that can do something with the details.

Don't you think it would help with their education into the reality of the sport if you spoke in less vague terms? Why do you think being vague helps the 90% of casual fans? Do you really think watching the Vuelta with Contador, Froome, Piti and Rodriguez that cycling is getting cleaner?

Here is what I do not understand - on the one hand we get very clear explicit comments, support and praise for the likes of Contador and Armstrong, contrasted with very strong condemnation of Landis, Hamilton, JJ, Kimmage, Ricco. None of which gives the impression of a sport that is moving on or cleaning up. Quick to condemn omerta breakers but even quicker to support dopers. But when it comes to explicit discussions about anti-doping, breaking omerta, everyone suddenly loses the ability to speak directly.

Given how omerta upholders and doping apologists have successfully captured the 'commanding heights' of the mainstream media - don't you think that anti-dopers need to be more assertive?

Let's look at it this way - do you think anything has changed within the cycling environment to make the next Landis whistleblower feel happier and safer about blowing the whistle? Do you think that the next Landis will be supported by David Millar or will he attacked by Millar?

Do you think in 10 years time we'll be looking back at your claims of the sport having cleaned up with the same air in which we look back at Liggett's claims that the sport was cleaning up?

I'd like to go back to the USP and Gerol riders that you signed contrasted with riders who were banned. So to get this clear - even though you knew that the ex-USP riders had been doping when at USP they were not required to either confess their doping to you or to WADA at the time at which you signed them? Regarding Millar - did you require him to speak to WADA about his time at SD with Ricco, Piepoli and Mayo?

It seems something of a double-standard and it does not really help the anti-doping fight if the only people compelled to confess their sins are those who have been busted, while those with skeletons in the closet can continue to keep them there.

BTW Have you ever read 'The Captive Mind' by Czesław Miłosz? It seems very appropriate in this discussion about omerta and compromises.

 

[Mr.38%]

Nice, the 'discredit the withness game'.

JJ wasn't a witness at that time, he was riding for ONCE... That discussion took place on the day after Beloki's terrible crash. We were talking about all aspects, Lance's cyclocross action, Vino's stage win and how JJ let his top 10 spot go to stay with his captain.

The discussion about Sinkewitz was happening during a training camp in the year he signed for Quick Step. Some riders were from his region in Hessen (so some jealousy is in fact possible). Was that 2001? And remember what happened with him at the WC in Plouay the year before

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

A (kinda) summary of the thread so far...

I, for one, am glad that JV is engaging with posters on the forum.

 

[theyoungest]

I also think it is good to have JV explain this.

I don't know JJ personally, so perhaps what JV is saying is correct. Then again, one has to understand that, after seeing cyclist after cyclist lie time and time again about doping, cycling fans are understandably cynical.

I would really like to believe that Garmin's achievements were done in a clean manner and really represent a future for this sport. I also wanted to believe that Hamilton, Landis, and Contador were clean too though.

There's understandably cynical, and there's unbelievably cynical. I'd rate most of the posters in this thread (and this subforum) among the latter category. I don't know why JV bothers posting here.

Apparently, Garmin should have signed Jaksche because he's an ex-doper, and Garmin sign ex-dopers. Ooookay. What happened to just not liking the guy/not being interested?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

A (kinda) summary of the thread so far...

I, for one, am glad that JV is engaging with posters on the forum.

Should I bill CN for having contributed (some of) the questions?

I would like to know if/when JV spoke to the ex-USP (and the Gerol) riders on the team about their doping? Was it discussed before or after the Landis revelations?

 

[ToreBear]

A (kinda) summary of the thread so far...

I, for one, am glad that JV is engaging with posters on the forum.

I did'nt like the article. It's too much a copy of a conversation. Feels kind of like a violation of privacy in a way. I't should be cleaned up with certain citations and more normalized news language. Then it should refer to the discussion for a better understanding of the context involved.

Forum speak does not make a good article. Information gained in a forum could be used for an article. Copying and pasting a discussion, is just a bit too simplistic in my view.

Thats just my 2 cents to whomever wrote the article.


But I'm also glad JV engages in the forum. I hope others in cycling follow his lead in being more open.

 

[Telmisartan new]

A (kinda) summary of the thread so far...

I, for one, am glad that JV is engaging with posters on the forum.

So am i, it shows nerve to come on and put his points across, its more than were ever likely to get from Mr Svengali Brailsford. Step in the right direction whether we agree with him or not.

 

[will10]

Who would've thought even six months ago we'd have this kind of discussion going on with an almost open naming of certain riders and their past. OK so CVV, Zabriskie and Danielson are hardly white as white given their history, but coming out and naming them on a public forum? Talking about Danielson's o2 vector doping as if it's the most normal thing in the world? I'd like to think that's a big step forward.

Thanks JV for your contribution.

 

[hrotha]

There's understandably cynical, and there's unbelievably cynical. I'd rate most of the posters in this thread (and this subforum) among the latter category. I don't know why JV bothers posting here.

Apparently, Garmin should have signed Jaksche because he's an ex-doper, and Garmin sign ex-dopers. Ooookay. What happened to just not liking the guy/not being interested?

No, no one's saying Garmin should have signed JJ because he was an ex-doper and Garmin sings ex-doper. What some people were saying is that, if Garmin wanted a clean sport, helping out a blacklisted whistleblower would have sent out a very powerful message to the cycling world. JV then explained why it didn't happen, convincing some forumers, but not all.

Sure, there's some people here going a bit too far and getting too personal, but I don't think that's the majority of the Clinic.

 

[will10]

Jonathan Vaughters ‏@Vaughters
Anyone who thinks I'm a slick talking PR man, guess I, idiotically, proved you wrong. I'm just a dumb ***. Apologies.

Something tells me we won't see such enlightening posts from JV on here again. A shame.

 

[webvan]

Catching up with this thread after reading the article on CN...strange days indeed! At the end of the day I fell I have a better understanding of what went on. It's one thing to know that doping is just a given in cycling it's another to have it spelled out by someone with JV's credibility.

Cyclists must really be completely paranoid, everyone talks openly about doping in the peloton and at the hotel (where journalists are present) and then when the official word is put out in the papers, it's "doping, what ?". No wonder they can deny the obvious since they've done that since day 1. Things start going wrong when a test comes back positive because someone made a silly mistake...

 

[BigBoat]

Cycling is cleaner now. just look at the numbers. I'm not being idealistic. I'm just looking at VAM, av hb, power outputs, etc.

Sky, in the same form they had in 2012 TdF would have gotten slaughtered in the 1996 Tour de France. Not one guy in the top 30 on GC.

That's my only point. And the numbers support that.

Ryder Hesjedal's watts per kilo tracked throughout a year (from January training rides through May at the Giro would be great to have on a site like training peaks.

Of course an independent source would have to be used to prevent file tampering so the real power data was posted for all the public to see. I wonder how Antoine Vayer would react to the Giro power numbers.

Perhaps Jonathon can have Vayer keep the power meter slopes for Team Garmin and upload the data of some winter & spring training rides, as well as summer rides then compare them to the races. We could compare all out numbers in training to the races.

"you'd get a continuous output of power." -Greg Lemond

 

[ElChingon]

So does this confirm Tommy D as one of the 10 or so in the USADA case?

 

[Kender]

So does this confirm Tommy D as one of the 10 or so in the USADA case?

well it doesn't confirm it but it would be a pretty safe bet